Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

National Western Life Insurance Company (NWL) appealed after it was held liable for negligence and elder abuse arising from an NWL annuity sold to Barney Williams by Victor Pantaleoni. In 2016, Williams contacted Pantaleoni to revise a living trust after the death of Williams’ wife, but Pantaleoni sold him a $100,000 NWL annuity. When Williams returned the annuity to NWL during a 30-day “free look” period, Pantaleoni wrote a letter over Williams’ signature for NWL to reissue a new annuity. In 2017, when Williams cancelled the second annuity, NWL charged a $14,949.91 surrender penalty. The jury awarded Williams damages against NWL, including punitive damages totaling almost $3 million. In the Court of Appeal's prior opinion reversing the judgment, the Court concluded Pantaleoni was an independent agent who sold annuities for multiple insurance companies and had no authority to bind NWL. The Court determined that Pantaleoni was an agent for Williams, not NWL. The California Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded, asking the appeals court to reconsider its finding that Pantaleoni did not have an agency relationship with National Western Life Insurance Company in light of Insurance Code sections 32, 101, 1662, 1704 and 1704.5 and O’Riordan v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Company, 36 Cal.4th 281, 288 (2005). Upon remand, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment finding NWL liable for negligence and financial elder abuse. However, punitive damages assessed against NWL were reversed. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s calculation of the attorney fee award, but remanded the case for the court to reconsider the award in light of the reversal of punitive damages. View "Williams v. Nat. W. Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The San Francisco Police Department allowed officers to carry secondary firearms when on duty, and to carry loaded handguns when off duty. A Department bulletin stated officers are responsible for ensuring that firearms under their control are secure at all times and provided specific guidelines for securing firearms in an unattended vehicle.Officer Cabuntala regularly carried an approved secondary firearm on duty and regularly transported it in his vehicle. On August 11, 2017, the city assigned Cabuntala to a training session in a different county. He drove his personal vehicle to the site, with his personal firearm in the vehicle. Firearms were not allowed at the training session. When the training was over, Cabuntala drove home but failed to follow his usual practice of securing his personal firearm inside his house. He left it unsecured inside his vehicle. Cabuntala’s vehicle was broken into. The firearm was stolen and was used to kill Plaintiff’s son. The trial court entered summary judgment, finding Cabuntala was not acting within the scope of his employment. The court of appeal reversed. In the context of policing, a jury could reasonably find the officer’s failure to safely secure his weapon is “not so unusual or startling that it would seem unfair to include the loss resulting from it among other costs of the employer’s business.” View "Perez v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

LGCY is a Utah limited liability company formed in Delaware and headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. The real party in interest is a California resident who worked for LGCY as a sales representative and later a sales manager. After the real party in interest and six other LGCY executives and managers left LGCY and formed a competing company, LGCY filed suit in Utah state court against all seven individuals. Instead of joining the cross-complaint, the real party in interest filed a complaint in Fresno County Superior Court alleging virtually identical claims as those of his codefendants in their Utah cross-complaint.The Court of Appeal concluded that California Labor Code section 925 provides an exception to California's compulsory cross-complaint statute (Code Civ. Proc., section 426.30) such that an employee who comes within section 925's purview may file a complaint in California alleging claims that are related to the causes of action their employer has filed against them in a pending action in a sister state. The court also concluded that the Clause does not compel a state court (here, California) to extend credit to and apply the sister state's compulsory cross-complaint statute. In this case, LGCY has not demonstrated that the Fresno County Superior Court erred in overruling its demurrer, and the court therefore denied its petition for writ of mandate. View "LGCY Power, LLC v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Mendoza applied for employment with FTU. Mendoza cannot read English. A supervisor interviewed Mendoza in Spanish and filled out the application form, which Mendoza signed. All of the acknowledgments Mendoza signed were in English. FTU’s director of human resources later testified that it was his practice to review the FTU Employee Handbook, including an arbitration policy, in Spanish if appropriate, and to give Spanish-speaking employees a Spanish-language version of the Handbook. Mendoza denied receiving the Spanish-language Handbook.FTU hired Mendoza as a temporary, interstate truck driver. Mendoza filed a putative class action, alleging Labor Code violations: failure to pay minimum wages, to provide rest periods, to provide meal periods, to provide accurate wage statements, and to pay all wages owed upon termination. Mendoza opposed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the Handbook, which stated that it was not a contract and was merely for informational purposes, did not create a binding agreement and that any agreement was void for lack of mutual consent or voidable based on unilateral mistake.The court of appeal affirmed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration. It was for a court to decide whether the parties had entered into an agreement to arbitrate. In these circumstances, the parties have not entered into either an express or an implied contract to arbitrate. View "Mendoza v. Trans Valley Transport" on Justia Law

Labor Code section 970 prohibits employers from inducing employees to relocate and accept employment by way of knowingly false representations regarding the kind, character, or existence of work, or the length of time such work will last. Section 970 requires the plaintiff to establish, among other elements, justifiable reliance, and a knowingly false representation. Smule develops and markets consumer applications with a specialty in music social applications. White alleged a violation of section 970 arising out of discussions he had with Smule before accepting a position with Smule as lead project manager. White conceded he read, signed, and understood an “at-will” employment agreement.The trial court granted Smule summary judgment. The court of appeal reversed. White’s undisputed “at-will” employment status meant that he could not establish justifiable reliance on the length of time his work would last. Broadly construed, however, White’s complaint also encompassed misrepresentations regarding the role White would fill at Smule. The “at-will” employment provision did not negate justifiable reliance on those representations. View "White v. Smule, Inc." on Justia Law

Charter created a program for resolving and ultimately arbitrating employment-related disputes. Individuals who received an offer from Charter were required to complete a web-based onboarding process as a condition of employment; they were prompted to review and accept various policies and agreements, including the arbitration agreement and the program guidelines. After agreeing to submit all employment-related disputes with Charter to arbitration, Ramirez was hired in July 2019. In May 2020, Charter terminated Ramirez. Ramirez filed suit, alleging multiple claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and wrongful discharge. Charter moved to compel arbitration and sought attorney fees in connection with its motion pursuant to the arbitration agreement.The court denied Charter’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the requirement was substantively unconscionable because it shortened the statute of limitations for FEHA claims, failed to restrict attorney fee recovery to only frivolous or bad faith FEHA claims (contrary to FEHA), and impermissibly provided for an interim fee award for a party successfully compelling arbitration. The court of appeal affirmed. The arbitration agreement was a contract of adhesion, which establishes a minimal degree of procedural unconscionability, and the agreement contained a high degree of substantive unconscionability. The arbitration agreement is permeated by unconscionability and cannot be enforced. View "Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) allows employees to bring a civil action for penalties against their employer on behalf of themselves and other current and former “aggrieved” employees for Labor Code-related violations. La Face, a cashier at a Ralphs, brought a PAGA action, alleging that Ralphs violated an Industrial Welfare Commission order that required employers to provide seating when the nature of the work reasonably permitted the use of seats, or, for a job where standing was required, to provide seating for employee use when their use did not interfere with an employee’s duties.The trial court held that PAGA actions were equitable in nature and not triable to a jury and that Ralphs had not violated the order. The court of appeal affirmed, first holding that there is no right to a jury trial in a PAGA action. PAGA is an administrative enforcement hybrid. If tried to a jury, the parties would gain a jury trial right not otherwise available to either the agency or employers. Many violations would be based on rights that did not exist at common law. The court noted that even when lulls occurred in a Ralphs cashier’s primary duties, the cashiers were still required to move while fulfilling other tasks. View "LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Co." on Justia Law

Joseph alleged that Atwater terminated his employment as chief of police in violation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) Gov. Code 3304(c): no chief of police may be removed from office without being provided written notice of the reasons “and an opportunity for administrative appeal.” Joseph claims the hearing offered by Atwater was not mutually scheduled, was not before a mutually selected neutral hearing officer, did not require the city to bear the burden of proof as to just cause for his termination, and did not require Atwater to present witnesses and allow them to be cross-examined. The trial court denied Joseph’s petition, concluding he was an at-will employee. Joseph’s employment agreement stated he could be removed as police chief for any reason; if the removal was not for willful misconduct, he had the option of continuing his employment by returning to the position of police lieutenant.The court of appeal reversed. Joseph was an at-will employee only as police chief and had rights to employment as a lieutenant that could be terminated only for cause. Before Atwater could terminate his right to employment as a lieutenant, it was required by POBRA to provide him with the type of administrative appeal afforded public safety officers who are terminable only for cause, including a full evidentiary hearing before a neutral fact-finder. View "Joseph v. City of Atwater" on Justia Law

The Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code 2698 (PAGA)) authorizes “aggrieved employees” to file lawsuits on behalf of the state seeking civil penalties for Labor Code violations, and allocates 75 percent of the recovered penalties to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and 25 percent to all employees affected by the violation. Before filing suit, the PAGA plaintiff must submit notices of the alleged violations to LWDA and the employer.The first aggrieved employee submitted a notice of alleged Labor Code violations by his employer to the LWDA and subsequently filed a complaint. That employee later sought to amend his complaint to substitute in as the named plaintiff another aggrieved employee who had worked for the same employer. The superior court granted the employer summary judgment, concluding that the amended PAGA complaint cannot relate back to the original PAGA complaint where the second employee submitted his PAGA notice after the original complaint was filed, reasoning that allowing relation back grants the employee “more time to recover civil penalties than the LWDA itself would have.”The court of appeal reversed. Relation back would not grant the LWDA or any aggrieved employees the potential for any more than they had under the original complaint; if relation back does not apply, UBS avoids exposure to potential liability for civil penalties over some period of time. View "Hutcheson v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The California Personnel Board (Board) sustained a complaint brought by Vickie Mabry-Height, M.D., against the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) alleging discrimination based on age, race, and gender in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Board concluded that Dr. Mabry-Height established a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination based on certain conduct, and the Department failed to rebut the presumption of discrimination by offering evidence that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for this conduct. The Department petitioned the trial court for a writ of administrative mandamus seeking an order setting aside the Board’s decision. The petition was denied, and judgment was entered in favor of Dr. Mabry-Height. The Department appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court. View "Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. State Personnel Bd." on Justia Law